text:
Ms Fiona Moore and Kildare County Council
Case number: OCE-93401-X4C2M5
Whether the Council was entitled to refuse access to the information requested on the basis of article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations
OCE-93401-X4C2M5
1. On 25 July 2019 the appellant, acting on behalf of the owner and lessee/operator of a property in Co Kildare (the lessee), requested access to all environmental information held by Kildare County Council in respect of that property. In particular, the appellant sought:
(a) All data and laboratory analysis relating to groundwater quality at the site;
(b) All data and laboratory analysis relating to surface water quality at the site;
(c) All data and laboratory analysis relating to soil quality at the site;
(d) All reports prepared by third parties on behalf of the Council;
(e) All site logs, records of meetings and data resulting from site inspections and investigations;
(f) Any warning letters or enforcement notices issued in relation to the site under the provisions of the Waste Management Act 1995 or any other relevant environmental legislation;
(g) Any correspondence to statutory bodies and stakeholders relating to the status of the environment at the site;
(h) Any reports relating to a potential negative impact on the receiving environment; and
(i) Any environmental reports prepared by the Council for other government agencies.
2. On 23 August 2019, the Council responded to the appellant with a decision part-granting the request. The Council provided the appellant with information held by it in relation to categories (f), (g) and (i) above but refused to provide access to information held in respect of the remaining categories. The Council relied on article 9(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations as grounds for refusal. Article 9(1)(b) provides that a public authority may refuse to make available environmental information where the disclosure of that information would adversely affect the course of justice. The decision noted that the information refused was to be used as part of legal proceedings that might be brought and that some of the information had been prepared solely for the purpose of those proceedings. No further detail was provided.
3. The appellant sought an internal review of the Council's decision on 19 September 2019. The request for internal review queried whether the decision to refuse would "stand up to a public interest test". It noted that the lessee had not received notice of any criminal proceedings and submitted that if proceedings were issued, the information requested would need to be issued to all parties to allow preparation of a defence. The request also noted that the information requested had been obtained through survey work, investigations and monitoring carried out on-site by the Council, which had been facilitated by the lessee. It submitted that the lessee had been informed by Council officials carrying out the relevant investigations that the results of the tests would be made available to it and it was therefore reasonable to expect that the AIE request would be fully granted.
4. The Council issued a decision on the internal review request on 16 October 2019, which affirmed the original decision. It did not provide any further information or reasoning other than to note that the public interest test required "balancing the potentially negative impact of releasing the information to the persons who carried out the depositing of waste on the lands against the general public interest of releasing information" and that the Council was "currently engaged in active enforcement cases in relation to the site lands".
5. The appellant appealed to my Office on 13 November 2019.
6. It was unclear from the Schedule of Records provided by the Council to my Office at the outset of the appeal, which records within the scope of the appellant's request had been provided to the appellant and which had been refused. My Investigator asked the Council to clarify this point in her request for submissions of 22 May 2020. The Council's initial submissions, of 3 July 2020, did not provide such clarity. Those submissions referred to "individual items of withheld information" which the Council submitted were subject to both legal advice and litigation privilege. The submissions also noted that the Council had not addressed issues relating to an Environmental Risk Assessment of the site (referred to in the decision as the "ERA Report") on the basis that the Council was not clear as to whether disclosure of the ERA Report was to be determined as part of the appeal. This Office clarified that the ERA Report was within the scope of the appeal on 4 August 2020 and sought further clarity from the Council on 7 and 9 September 2020 as to the precise information which had been withheld. The Council subsequently confirmed to my Investigator that the withheld information consisted solely of the ERA Report. However, it did not provide an explanation as to why its submissions of 3 July 2020 made arguments in respect of the "withheld information" while also asserting that those submissions did not address the ERA Report which, according to the Council's subsequent clarifications, was the only item of withheld information. As such, my decision is concerned with whether any further information, within the scope of the appellant's request, has been withheld from the appellant.
7. The Council has refused access to the ERA Report on the basis of the grounds for refusal set out at article 9(1)(b) of the Regulations which provides for the withholding of information where disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice. When asked to provide further information on this point, the Council also submitted that the information is subject to legal privilege. As such, my review in this case is concerned with whether the Council was justified in refusing access to the ERA Report on the basis that the information is legally privileged and/or that disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice more generally.
8. The appellant's appeal form also took issue with the internal review process on the basis that the internal review had been carried out by the original decision maker's supervisor and line manager. However, this does not appear to me to be a breach of the procedure provided for in article 11(2) of the Regulations which provides that the internal review should be conducted by "a person unconnected with the original decision whose rank is the same as, or higher than, that of the original decision-maker". It is accepted that the internal reviewer occupied a higher rank than the original decision-maker and it would not be unusual for a decision-maker's line manager to act as an internal reviewer. In addition, there is nothing before me to suggest that the internal reviewer was improperly connected to the making of the original decision. As such I do not consider that this issue merits further investigation and my decision is limited to the matters outlined at paragraphs 6 and 7 above.
9. I also wish to express my regret that there has been a considerable delay in the resolution of this appeal which was due to a combination of factors. I consider that many of the delays occasioned could have been avoided had the Council been more responsive to requests made by this Office but I must also accept that some were occasioned by factors relating to my Office.
10. The appellant's submissions, both to the Council and to this Office, can be summarised as follows:
(i) The appellant submitted that much of the information requested was obtained from site visits, investigation and monitoring which occurred with the cooperation of the owner and operator of the site in question. The appellant submitted that the Council stated, during the course of those inspections and visits, that information obtained would be shared with the lessee. The appellant also submitted that the results of site investigations carried out by the lessee were made available to the Council. They submitted, on that basis, that it was reasonable to expect that the information sought in their AIE request would be released.
(ii) The appellant refuted that the public interest test in this case would warrant the refusal of the information requested. The appellant accepted that they were not entitled to information or correspondence between the Council and its legal advisors however they submitted that no notice of legal proceedings had been received by the lessee or the owner of the site at the date of the submissions (i.e. as of 23 September 2020) and that if proceedings were issued the Council would be required, in any event, to provide the information to the parties to those proceedings.
11. The submissions provided by the Council to this Office can be summarised as follows:
(i) The Council submitted that what it considered to be illegal dumping had taken place on the site in respect of which the information was sought. It submitted that a large volume of waste material had been brought on to the site from a number of sources and potential operators. The Council submitted that the withheld information represented part of an ongoing investigative process as part of which it was continuing to monitor the site for environmental pollution. It sought to rely on article 9(1)(b) and made specific reference to legal advice and litigation privilege as grounds for refusal of the withheld information.
(ii) The Council's submissions noted that there were a number of, what it described as, "threatened or contemplated" proceedings to which the withheld information might relate and in respect of which the Council had obtained legal advice. The Council also provided documents to this Office relating to those proceedings. The proceedings were as follows
A. A prosecution under sections 32(1), 39 and 55 of the Waste Management Acts 1996 to 2011.
The Council provided no further detail on these proceedings in its submissions however I understand from documents provided to this Office in connection with the proceedings, that while such proceedings were instituted against the owner of the site on 14 March 2017, they were subsequently withdrawn on 13 February 2018.
B. Threatened injunction proceedings under section 160 of the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2018.
The documents provided by the Council to my Office in connection with these proceedings include a recommendation on the part of Council officials that injunction proceedings under section 160 be initiated to restrain what the Council considered to be unauthorised development or breaches of planning permissions granted in connection with the site. The documents include a recommendation that a barrister be briefed on the matter as well as correspondence from the Council's solicitors to the owner and lessee of the site advising them of the Council's intention to initiate proceedings seeking injunctive relief. However, the recommendation and correspondence date from August 2017 and it does not appear that any proceedings were in fact instituted. Indeed, it is worth noting that the documents provide to my Office by the Council do not include pleadings, either in completed or draft form.
C. Contemplated proceedings under sections 57 and 58 of the Waste Management Acts 1996 to 2011.
The information provided to this Office with respect to these contemplated proceedings is minimal and does not suggest that preparation of those proceedings was at an advanced stage.
D. An application to the District Court for a warrant under the Waste Management Acts 1996 to 2011.
The Council did not provide further detail on this in its submissions but I understand from the documents provided to this Office that a warrant under the Waste Management Acts was granted by the District Court on 27 July 2018 having been sought by the Council in order to facilitate the investigations by Enviroguide carried out in connection with the ERA Report.
E. Proceedings brought against the Council by the lessee of the site.
It appears from the documents provided by the Council that this encompasses two sets of proceedings: (i) 2018/6040P alleging, inter alia, trespass and unlawful interference with the property and economic rights of the lessee and seeking an injunction to restrain such alleged trespass and interference; and (ii) 2018/7281P which alleged that personnel acting for or on behalf of the Council had engaged in activities on the site which contravened health and safety requirements and resulted in pollution of or damage to the site and sought further injunctions restraining the Council's access to the site and requiring it to remedy damage which the plaintiff contended had been caused by previous investigations. The documents provided by the Council demonstrate that an interim injunction was granted on 10 August 2018. It appears from the High Court Search function on the Courts website that a hearing took place on 20 August 2018 in which both sets of proceedings brought by the lessee against the Council were consolidated and the interlocutory reliefs sought by the lessee were refused. No written judgment appears to have been issued and no further activity in those proceedings is evident from the High Court Search. The Council did not provide further update on the status of these proceedings despite being requested to do so.
F. Prosecution under section 14 of the Waste Management Acts 1996 to 2011.
I understand from the documents provided to this Office in connection with the proceedings that this prosecution was issued against the lessee of the site and a named individual and involved an allegation that such named individual had obstructed or impeded authorised persons in the exercise of their powers under the Waste Management Acts contrary to section 14(6)(b) of same. It is not clear from the Council's submissions nor is it evident from the documents provided by it, whether such proceedings were pursued or finalised.
(iii) The Council submitted that the ERA Report was prepared as part of potential enforcement action under the Waste Management Acts 1996, specifically legal proceedings being contemplated under sections 57 and 58 of the 1996 Act (and referred to at C above). This included potential proceedings against the owner and lessee of the site in question. It explained that that the ERA represented part of its an ongoing investigative process which involved the continued monitoring of the site for environmental pollution. The Council explained that while it was satisfied environmental pollution had occurred at the site, there remained questions as to the extent of the pollution and that the purpose of the continued monitoring was to determine the level of pollution which had occurred. The Council further submitted that the level of pollution was one of the most important factors for it when deciding whether to initiate proceedings under the Waste Management Acts.
(iv) The Council also submitted that it was anticipated that the Report might be used as part of its defence in the proceedings referred to at E above as well as in the threatened injunction proceedings referred to at B.
(v) The Council was asked by the initial Investigator to clarify the status of proceedings under the sections 57 and 58 of Waste Management Acts. The Council advised my Investigator, on 5 November 2020, that proceedings had yet to be commenced but that the Council continued to monitor pollution on the site for the purposes of considering whether legal proceedings were necessary. The Council were asked to provide an update on the status of any proceedings by my Investigator on 27 July 2021 however no response was received, despite the Council being facilitated with a number of extensions of time to provide one.
(vi) The Council submitted that the ERA Report represented a "snap shot in time, depicting a state of affairs that may be viewed very differently in light of ongoing investigations and monitoring results". It noted that it might be framed in the context of additional reports and surveys if used in proceedings in the future and that release of the Report in its current and potentially incomplete format "may portray a version of events very different to the version of events [the Council] may wish to portray in proceedings". It submitted that this "may serve to confuse the issue before the Courts by presenting alternative viewpoints which the opposition could contend represented an official viewpoint of [the Council]". The Council also submitted that it might be advised that the withheld information should not form part of any future proceedings and that "release of the withheld information could then result in that information forming part of the proceedings by being introduced by one of the other parties in the proceedings, thereby prejudicing and interfering with [the Council's] rights". The Council did not specify the proceedings to which it was referring, nor did it provide any further detail as to the rights to which it referred or how such rights might be prejudiced.
(vii) In response to a request from my Office to set out its views on the public interest balancing test required under articles 10(3) and 10(4) of the Regulations, the Council submitted that it was not aware of any public interest factors in favour of disclosure of the withheld information and that it was difficult to contemplate what benefit to the environment would be gained by releasing the information to the appellant in circumstances where, the Council contended, the appellant was acting on behalf of a lessee who had imported large volumes of material, including waste, on to the site in question. It submitted that the importation of material on to the site in question meant that the site would need to be monitored for environmental pollution for many years to come and it was difficult to contemplate what public interest there could be in providing the appellant with the withheld information. It noted that "bearing in mind [the Council's] experience, the suspicion is that the release of the information may have a contrary effect". No further detail was provided as to the contrary effect in question.
12. I have now completed my review under article 12(5) of the Regulations. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the submissions made by the appellant and the Council. I have also examined the contents of the information at issue. In addition, I have had regard to:
Relevant case law including University College Cork v the Electricity Supply Board [2014] IEHC 135 which relates to the application of litigation privilege, and the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in C-619/19 Land Baden-Württemberg v DR which provides guidance on the application of exceptions contained in the Regulations.
13. As noted above, the Council's submissions of 3 July 2020 specifically noted that the ERA Report was not addressed therein but nonetheless referred to "individual items of withheld information" which, it submitted, were subject to both legal advice and litigation privilege. This might suggest that the "withheld information" referred to in the Council's submissions of 3 July 2020 encompassed more than the ERA Report. On the other hand, it might simply be confusing drafting on the author's part. However, despite being given the opportunity to clarify the situation on a number of occasions the Council has provided no response to my Office on this point. I consider that any continued attempts on the part of this Office to seek clarification from the Council at this stage would cause further delays to the resolution of this appeal. As there remains some uncertainty as to why the Council's submissions of 3 July 2020 referred to "individual items of withheld information", this decision will proceed on the basis that the only item of "withheld information" was the ERA Report. I will also remit the matter back to the Council for the sole purpose of ascertaining that no further information within the scope of the request has been withheld.
14. Accordingly, as outlined above, the remaining issue in this appeal is whether the Council was justified in refusing access to the ERA Report.
Do the Regulations provide grounds for refusal of the ERA Report?
15. The Council has argued that the ERA Report is subject to legal advice privilege and litigation privilege and that its disclosure would adversely impact the course of justice such that the exception under article 9(1)(b) applies. As such, it is necessary for me to consider, in the first instance, whether any of the following apply in the circumstances of this appeal such that a prima facie justification for refusal of the ERA Report exists:
(i) Legal advice privilege
(ii) Litigation privilege
(iii) An adverse impact on the course of justice.
If the answer to any of the above questions is yes, I must then go on to consider whether the interest in withholding the information in question outweighs the public interest in its disclosure.
Legal Advice Privilege
16. Legal advice privilege applies to confidential communications made between a client and their legal adviser for the purpose of obtaining and/or giving legal advice. The ERA Report is an environmental risk assessment of the site to which the request for information relates which was prepared by environmental consultants on behalf of the Council. The ERA Report was not prepared by the Council's legal advisors and is not legal advice. Therefore, it is not information to which legal advice privilege can attach.
Litigation Privilege
17. Litigation privilege applies to confidential communications, made between a person and a professional legal advisor or with a third party (either directly or through that legal advisor), the dominant purpose of which is the preparation for contemplated or pending litigation.
18. The judgment of Finlay Geoghegan J in University College Cork v the Electricity Supply Board [2014] IEHC 135 provides useful guidance on the history and application of the concept of litigation privilege and summarises the relevant principles as follows (see paragraph 4):
(i) Litigation privilege constitutes a potential restriction and a diminution of a full disclosure, both prior to and during the course of legal proceedings which is desirable for the purpose of ascertaining the truth and rendering justice. As such, it must be constrained. Smurfit Paribas v AAB Export Finance [1990] 1 IR 469 per Finlay CJ at p 477.
(ii) The purpose of litigation privilege is to aid the administration of justice, not to impede it. In general, justice will be best served where there is candour and where all relevant documentary evidence is available. Gallagher v Stanley [1998] 2 IR 267 per O'Flaherty J at p 271.
(iii) The document must have been created when litigation is apprehended or threatened.
(iv) The document must have been created for the dominant purpose of the apprehended or threatened litigation; it is not sufficient that the document has two equal purposes, one of which is apprehended or threatened litigation. Gallagher v Stanley [1998] 2 IR 267 at p 274 approving the test propounded by the House of Lords in Waugh v British Railways Board [1980] AC 521.
(v) The dominant purpose of the document is a matter for objective determination by the Court in all the circumstances and does not only depend upon the motivation of the person who caused the document to be created. Gallagher v Stanley and Woori Bank & Hanvit LSP Finance Ltd v KDB Bank Ireland Ltd [2005] IEHC 451.
(vi) The onus is on the party asserting privilege to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the dominant purpose for which the document was brought into existence was to obtain legal advice or enable his solicitor prosecute or defend an action. Woori Bank and Downey v Murray [1988] NI 600.
19. The issue for determination in the UCC case was whether ESB could rely on litigation privilege in relation to documents relating to a 2009 flood which was the subject of litigation between UCC and ESB as well as in relation to documents relating to previous flooding events. Finlay Geoghegan J was not satisfied that documents could be given the benefit of litigation privilege in circumstances where common sense suggested that those documents had been prepared not only for the purposes of anticipated litigation but also in connection with presentations made by ESB to a Joint Oireachtas Committee and as a result of the ESB's usual practice of carrying out investigations following flooding incidents. The Court concluded that while the apprehended litigation was one of the purposes for which the documents were prepared, the other purposes were at least equal purposes of its preparation and it could not therefore be said that apprehended or threatened litigation was the dominant purpose.
20. I must therefore examine the background to the preparation of the ERA Report as well as the Report itself to determine its purpose or purposes. It is only in the event that I am satisfied that the dominant purpose of the ERA Report was contemplated or pending proceedings, that I can find that litigation privilege attaches to it. As noted by Finlay Geoghegan J in UCC, the onus is on the party asserting privilege to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the dominant purpose for which the document was brought into existence was to enable that party's solicitor to prosecute or defend an action (see UCC, paragraph 5).
21. It appears from the information before me that in 2017, the lessee and operator of the site in question began to import materials (i.e. soil and stone) onto the site which had been obtained from sites, including schools and hospitals, on which excavation work had taken place. The site had previously been operated as a quarry and the imported materials were deposited in the former quarry. The lessee classed the materials in question as by-products within the meaning of the European Communities (Waste Directive) Regulations 2011 (the "2011 Regulations"). The lessee's position is that importation and depositing of the materials onto the site was in lawful compliance with planning conditions applicable to the site which required the restoration of the quarry. The Council disputes this. In July 2017, the Council conducted a site inspection and took the view that the materials being imported onto the site were waste materials rather than by-products. This led to further investigations by the Council and it was in the course of those investigations that the ERA Report was commissioned and prepared.
22. My understanding is that the classification of the materials in question is significant as waste management legislation provides for differing treatment of by-products and waste. Article 27 of the 2011 Regulations requires that an economic operator who classes a product as a by-product must notify the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of such classification as well as the reasons for same. The EPA may then decide, in conjunction with the relevant local authority, whether the material in question has been correctly classified. In this case, the lessee and operator of the site submitted a number of notifications to the EPA under article 27. I understand that an article 27 notification was submitted to the EPA in respect of each set of materials received by the operator. The importation of materials onto the site took place pending determinations by the EPA as to the nature of the materials in question. Determinations by the EPA on a number of such notifications were pending at the time of the Council's site inspections and investigations. In many cases, the EPA, having consulted with the Council in respect of the application, ultimately disagreed with the classification applied. The EPA's determinations in respect of a number of the lessee's article 27 notifications were the subject of judicial review proceedings. I understand that the Council was not a party to these proceedings and no details in relation to these proceedings were provided in the Council's submissions, although there is some reference to them in the documents provided to this Office by the Council. It appears from the High Court search function on the Courts website, that an order of certiorari was granted by the High Court on foot of those judicial review proceedings in October 2018. As such, a live issue between the parties at the time of the Council's investigations was the appropriate classification of the materials in question.
23. Following its July 2017 inspection, the Council issued a direction to the owner of the site directing the immediate cessation of the importation of waste materials in accordance with section 14(5)(a) of the Waste Management Acts. The Council received a response to its direction, on 10 July 2017, from an entity which appears to have been acting on behalf of the lessee. The response asserted that the material being imported was soil and stone which had been obtained from excavation projects. It also asserted that this material was being imported for the purposes of restoring the site, which had previously been used as a quarry. It submitted that the material in question was by-product not waste and that a notification had been submitted to the EPA in this regard. It therefore disputed the Council's entitlement to issue a direction under section 14(5)(a) of the Waste Management Acts. In mid-July, a multiagency inspection of the site took place involving personnel from the Council, the Gardaí, the Revenue Commissioners and the Road Safety Authority. It was determined by the Council that hauliers who entered the site in the course of that inspection were not acting in compliance with their waste collection permits as those permits did not allow for the disposal of waste at the site in question. The lessee, on the other hand, disputed that the materials being brought to the site were waste materials, disposal of which would require a permit. Further inspections of the site were carried out by the Council in August 2017, which also concluded that waste continued to be imported onto the site.
24. In correspondence with the EPA dated 23 August 2017, which was released to the appellant as part of their request, the Council set out its view that the regional importance of the groundwater vulnerability at the site meant that the activities in question posed an environmental risk and might lead to adverse environmental and/or human health impacts.
25. In September 2017, a notice was issued to the owner of the site under section 55 of the Waste Management Acts. According to the August 2017 correspondence between the Council and the EPA, a notice under section 55 of the Waste Management Acts had been issued to the site owner in 2016 directing the removal of waste and this notice had not been complied with such that the Council had now referred the matter to its legal department for the purpose of initiating proceedings. My understanding is that these are the proceedings referred to in paragraph 11(ii)A above which were initiated in March 2017 but withdrawn in February 2018, before the commissioning of the ERA Report.
26. The information disclosed to the appellant also included a letter sent to another haulier, in September 2017, which directed immediate cessation of waste disposal at the site in question, failing which, enforcement action would be initiated by the Council. No further information has been provided to this Office in connection with such threatened enforcement action. In October 2017, the Council received notice from the EPA that it had made determinations in respect of certain notifications received by the lessee and had concluded that the materials which were the subject of those notifications should be considered a waste and not a by-product. As outlined above, my understanding is that a number of notifications were made to the EPA under article 27 of the 2011 Regulations at various stages of the Council's investigation process which sought to classify materials being imported to the site as by-products rather than waste.
27. Further inspections appear to have been carried out in October, November and December 2017 and again the view taken by the Council was that waste materials continued to be imported onto the site without the appropriate permissions. The Council commissioned a geophysical survey of the site in January 2018. A further inspection was also carried out in late January, on the basis of which the Council concluded that waste continued to be imported and estimated that approximately 400,000 to 500,000 tonnes of waste had been imported onto the site since July 2017.
28. The geophysical survey of January 2018 consisted of a non-intrusive survey of the site. It concluded that Type 1 and Type 2 waste was present on the site and recommended more intrusive investigations to further examine the nature and thickness of the possible waste material. The Council then issued a Request for Tender for a Tier 2 and Tier 3 Risk Assessment, the completed version of which issued on 24 April 2019 and is the ERA Report which is the subject of the present appeal. The Request for Tender notes that the successful applicant will be expected to apply the methodologies set out in the EPA's Code of Practice on "Environmental Risk Assessment for Unregulated Waste Disposal Sites" to "prepare reports" and to "manage and supervise the site investigations". The Request for Tender notes that the successful tenderer will produce a detailed evidence based report interpreting the analytical results obtained from the exploratory site investigation and sampling. It also lists the objectives of the investigation and sampling which appear technical in nature and include confirmation of the composition, character and extent of the waste as well as the impact on ground and surface water and the exploration and determination of Source, Pathway, Receptor linkages. There is no reference to proceedings or potential proceedings in the Request for Tender. However, the ERA Report itself is marked "Legally privileged and prepared for potential Court proceedings".
29. The Council have submitted that "while the report may be used for other purposes" the dominant purpose of the ERA Report was "proceedings being contemplated under section 57 and 58 of the Waste Management Acts 1996 to 2011". However, the Request for Tender suggests a broader purpose i.e. to determine the extent to which waste materials had been imported onto the site and the impact of the presence of any such materials. The Council has also suggested, in its submissions to this Office, that the purpose of the ERA Report was to provide a "snap shot in time" of the pollution status of the site so that the Council could determine whether ongoing monitoring of the site was required and, depending on the level of pollution identified through such monitoring, whether or not the initiation of proceedings was appropriate. As such, I consider that it can be said that the purposes of the Report were (i) to determine the level of waste materials present at the site; (ii) to determine whether further monitoring was necessary; and (iii) to determine whether the initiation of legal proceedings should be considered.
30. The ERA Report is dated 24 April 2019. While I accept that investigations of any nature can take time and that investigations of environmental matters can often prove complex, I note the appellant's submission that, as of 23 September 2020, neither the owner nor the lessee/operator of the site had been notified of any further proceedings relating to the site in question. On 5 November 2020, the Council confirmed to my Investigator that enforcement proceedings under sections 57 and 58 of the Waste Management Acts had not been initiated and that the Council continued to monitor pollution levels at the site such that the decision to initiate proceedings remained under review. In July 2021, my Investigator wrote to the Council seeking an update as to the status of any proceedings to which the Council contended the withheld information was relevant. Despite multiple requests for an update, no response was received from the Council in this regard. I also note the Council's submissions to this Office of 3 July 2020 that "it is possible that [the Council] on foot of advice from their legal advisors may decide that the withheld information should not form part of the proceedings".
31. Having regard to the information before me, which includes the EPA Report itself as well as information and submissions provided by the Council, I am not satisfied that it can be said, in the circumstances of this case, that the dominant purpose of the ERA Report was apprehended or threatened litigation. It may be said that this was one purpose of the Report, but it was not in my view, its dominant purpose. As such, I do not consider litigation privilege to provide grounds for refusal of the ERA Report.
Adverse impact on the course of justice more generally
32. As outlined above, article 9(1)(b) provides that a public authority may withhold information where the disclosure of that information "would adversely affect … the course of justice (including criminal inquiries and disciplinary inquiries)". It is clear from the wording of article 9(1)(b) that it encompasses a broader range of scenarios than those to which legal privilege applies. It is therefore possible that information which is not subject to legal privilege might still fall within the exception provided for in article 9(1)(b).
33. However, the wording of article 9(1)(b) also makes it clear that there must be some adverse effect on the course of justice in order for the exception to apply. While the AIE Regulations do not explicitly provide that the burden of proof rests with the public authority in relation to justifying a refusal to make information available, I consider that the scheme of the Regulations, and of Directive 2003/4/EC upon which the Regulations are based, makes it clear that there is a presumption in favour of release of environmental information.
34. This view aligns with the decision of the Court of Justice of the EU in C-619/19 Land Baden-Württemberg v DR. Although that decision relates to the exception contained in article 9(2)(d) of the Regulations, it contains some useful guidance in relation to the application of exceptions generally. The CJEU noted in particular, at paragraph 69 of its judgment (emphasis added):
"…[A] public authority which adopts a decision refusing access to environmental information must set out the reasons why it considers that the disclosure of that information could specifically and actually undermine the interest protected by the exceptions relied upon. The risk of that interest being undermined must be reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical".
35. The submissions made by the Council to this Office do not, in my view, establish a reasonably foreseeable risk that release of the ERA Report will adversely affect the course of justice. The Council has simply made general statements as to what might happen were the Report to be released. It has pointed to a number of proceedings and potential proceedings which it says might be affected by disclosure of the Report. The Council has submitted that release of the Report in its current and potentially incomplete format "may portray a version of events very different to the version of events [the Council] may wish to portray in proceedings" and that this "may serve to confuse the issue before the Courts by presenting alternative viewpoints which the opposition could contend represented an official viewpoint of [the Council]". It also submitted that it might be advised that the withheld information should not form part of any future proceedings and that "release of the withheld information could then result in that information forming part of the proceedings by being introduced by one of the other parties in the proceedings, thereby prejudicing and interfering with [the Council's] rights". However, the Council has failed to set out, despite many requests from this Office, the status of the proceedings which it asserts will be adversely impacted let alone the precise and reasonably foreseeable risks to those proceedings of the release of the Report.
36. It appears from the information provided to my Office that a number of the proceedings referred to by the Council were concluded by the time the ERA Report was provided to it in April 2019. While the Council's submissions referred to six sets of proceedings (see paragraph 11(ii) above), my understanding from the documents and information provided by the Council, is that only four of those proceedings were in fact initiated, the prosecution under sections 32, 39 and 55 of the Waste Management Acts (referred to in paragraph 11(ii)(A)), the District Court application for a warrant (referred to in paragraph 11(ii)(D)), the proceedings initiated by the lessee (referred to in paragraph 11(ii)(E)) and the prosecution under section 14 of the Waste Management Acts (referred to in paragraph 11(ii)(F)). The prosecution referred to in paragraph 11(ii)(A) had been withdrawn by the time of the request while the District Court application at paragraph 11(ii)(B) had been granted. The status of the proceedings at 11(ii)(E) and 11(ii)(F) is unclear.
37. The "threatened injunction proceedings" under section 160 of the Planning Acts (referred to in paragraph 11(ii)(B)) were contemplated in August 2017, over two years prior to the finalisation of the ERA Report in April 2019, but do not appear to have been initiated. As of November 2020, over a year and a half after the finalisation of the ERA Report, no proceedings under sections 57 and 58 of the Waste Management Acts had been initiated. The Council has not provided any indication to this Office that such proceedings have since been initiated or that it intends to issue such proceedings. While the status of the proceedings taken against the Council by the lessee of the site (and referred to in paragraph 11(ii)(E) above) is unclear, it appears from the documents provided to my Office that the Council's defence to those proceedings is that they are unsustainable, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. It is not clear to me how the disclosure of the ERA Report would undermine that defence, let alone how it would adversely affect the course of justice having regard to the principles set out by Finlay Geoghegan J in UCC which make it clear that "in general, justice will be best served where there is candour and where all relevant documentary evidence is available" (see UCC, paragraph 4). The prosecution referred to in paragraph 11(ii)(F) relates to alleged obstruction of an authorised officer under the Waste Management Acts and it is not clear how such a prosecution, if it remains ongoing, would be adversely impacted by release of the ERA Report.
38. I am therefore not satisfied that article 9(1)(b) applies in the circumstances of this case.
Article 8(a)(iv)
39. Where legal privilege attaches to information the subject of an AIE request, a question may arise as to whether grounds for refusal of that information may be found in article 8(a)(iv) or in article 9(1)(b). However, having found that neither legal advice nor litigation privilege apply to the information at issue here, it is not necessary for me to consider this question further.
40. As I do not consider any of the grounds for refusal under the AIE Regulations to have been established in this case, it is not necessary for me to consider the public interest balancing exercise provided for by articles 10(3) and 10(4) of the Regulations.
41. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I find that the Council was not justified in withholding the information sought. Accordingly, I annul the Council's decision and direct disclosure of the EPA Report.
42. I also remit the matter to the Council for the limited purpose of determining whether, at the time of the appellant's request, it held any information within the scope of that request, other than the EPA Report, which has not been disclosed to the appellant. If the Council determines that it did hold such additional information, then it should consider whether such information should be released to the appellant in accordance with the AIE Regulations.
A party to the appeal or any other person affected by this decision may appeal to the High Court on a point of law from the decision. Such an appeal must be initiated not later than two months after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
Placeholder for main body of content, update or delete component as per your needs. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Asperiores similique adipisci odio distinctio consectetur quas incidunt totam, mollitia minus maiores sed nisi saepe officiis quaerat vero.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Asperiores similique adipisci odio distinctio consectetur quas incidunt totam, mollitia minus maiores sed nisi saepe officiis quaerat vero.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Asperiores similique adipisci odio distinctio consectetur quas incidunt totam, mollitia minus maiores sed nisi saepe officiis quaerat vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Asperiores similique adipisci odio distinctio consectetur quas incidunt totam, mollitia minus maiores sed nisi saepe officiis quaerat vero.


text:
Q: How to use one define or function to print any variable type using C? This started as a joke type of Cython, with me making a lot of silly defines to emulate python using C. Then I realized it was actually sort of convenient for debugging and quickly hacking together programs.
I have a define that mostly works, using sizeof to distinguish types, but a 3 or 7 character char array/string + \0 will be printed as a double or an int. Is there anyway around this? I was considering using a try-exception to subscript it to see if it's a string, but I can't implement it.
#include <stdio.h>

#define print(n) if(sizeof(n)==8)      printf("%f\n",n); \
                 else if(sizeof(n)==4) printf("%i\n",n); \
                 else                  printf("%s\n",n);

int main()
{
    print("Hello world!") // these all work perfectly
    print(8.93)
    print(4)

    print("abc") // these are interpreted as ints or doubles
    print("1234567")

    return 0;
}

A: gcc has a handy built-in for you (also available with clang), which allows to directly compare types:

int __builtin_types_compatible_p (type1, type2)
This built-in function returns 1 if the unqualified versions of the types type1 and type2
(which are types, not expressions) are compatible, 0 otherwise. The result of this built-in
function can be used in integer constant expressions.

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Other-Builtins.html
This built-in is used for type-specific dispatch and type checking in linux kernel, to name one example.
To get the types out of expressions, you can rely on typeof() statement, to the tune:
__builtin_types_compatible_p (typeof(n), int)

A: Selecting an operation based on the type of the argument can be done with the _Generic construct:
#define print(X) _Generic((0, X), int: print_int, \
                                  double: print_double, \
                                  char *: print_string)(X)

void print_int(int x) { printf("%d\n", x); }
// etc

All _Generic does is select one of the expressions in its list - that's why the argument to the macro appears twice (once to select based on its type, once to actually apply it to whichever function/value was chosen). You can also supply a default expression. Apparently the comma expression (that (0, X)) is necessary to easily support string literals: it decays the string into a char *.
_Generic is available in compilers that support C11 (which includes GCC and Clang). There's a workaround for some C99 compilers in Jens Gustedt's P99, as well.

A: Modern C, AKA C11, has _Generic for type generic macros. Something like
#define P(x) printf(_Generic(x, unsigned: "%u", signed: "%d", double: "%g"), x)

should do the trick.

A: The non-C++11 version perhaps, simply overloading a function... It's more than just a macro obviously:
void print_var(const char *s)
{
  printf("%s", s);
}

void print_var(unsigned int u)
{
  printf("%u", u);
}

void print_var(int d)
{
  printf("%d", d);
}

void print_var(double f)
{
  printf("%f", f);
}

#define print(v)    { print_var(v); \
                      printf("\n"); }

int main()
{
  print("abc")
  print(1234)
  print(-13)
  print(3.141592654)
  print("1234567")
  print("Hello world!")
  print(8.93)
  print(4)
  if(1)
    print("this too")
  if(2)
    print("and this")
}

Yielding the output:
abc
1234
-13
3.141593
1234567
Hello world!
8.930000
4
this too
and this

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
In Photos: STONE TEMPLE PILOTS, SEETHER Veteran's Day Performance
November 11, 2018 - Cambridge, - St. Catharines Ontario Meridian Centre
By Featured Correspondent	 On Nov 18, 2018
On Veteran's Day, the legendary Stone Temple Pilots ignited the Ontario crowd with a stellar performance, giving fans a taste of new vocalist Jeff Gutt. The band is touring in support of its latest studio release, S.T.P., from which they played two new singles, "Meadow" and "Roll Me Under". The band, which also features founding members Robert (bass) and Dean (guitar) DeLeo and drummer Eric Kretz, rocked through a tight set that also included classic tracks like "Wicked Garden," "Crackerman," "Vasoline," "Plush," "Interstate Love Song," and "Sex Type Thing".
STP were joined by Seether, who continue to tour in support of their critically-acclaimed 2017 effort, Posion the Parish. Vancouver's Default opened the night. Our own Mark Skinner was on hand and behind the lens to capture some of the evenings fantastic moments.
All photos © 2018 Mark Skinner Photography
DefaultSeetherStone Temple Pilots
Featured Correspondent 17 posts 0 comments
Concert Review: BEHEMOTH deliver sinister set in Kansas City
DOWNPOUR Interview: Derek Kerswill and Matt LeBreton talk debut album
In Photos: JONATHAN DAVIS brings 'Black Labyrinth' to the road
In Photos: THE SWORD, KING BUFFALO enthralled Boise
In Photos: ASKING ALEXANDRIA with CROWN THE EMPIRE
In Photos: DOROTHY descends to deliver raw, bluesy performance
In Photos: JONATHAN DAVIS brings 'Black…

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Earlier this week, we revealed our position on SegWit2x and announced possible platform arrangements. As the split approaches, we want to update you on how the future changes would impact your operations on CEX.IO.
First and foremost, we are convinced that technologies have to develop as advancements are a part of the process nobody can stop. Taking the middle position between cryptocurrency creators and users, we should not accept either of the sides of debates on SegWit2x and Bitcoin Gold forks.
The cornerstone of our philosophy is the provision of convenience, comfort, and opportunities to our clients. Therefore, we will keep all your operations running, regardless of the modifications.
Deposits and withdrawals from your old BTC address will work as before. BTG deposits and withdrawals will be enabled later. And we guarantee that all users will receive the BTG in correspondence to the Bitcoins on their CEX.IO accounts. We will provide more details about the particular proportion later.
In this case, it is possible that we will stop withdrawal and deposit operations of BTC until we are sure they are safe and secure for our users. Deposits and withdrawals of B2X will be available for the users later. Track the updates on our blog to gain additional information about the particular proportions.
In any case, you should not worry because of the massive changes Bitcoin is going through. Whatever happens, we are going to act in the best interest of our clients.


Marietta, GA (November 5, 2018)— Gregory, Doyle, Calhoun & Rogers is pleased to announce the recent addition of three attorneys to the Marietta-based law firm.
Arun Gupta has joined the Trusts & Estates division where he is assisting clients with tax planning wills, advance health care directives, durable powers of attorney, guardianship and a variety of trusts configurations. He earned his Juris Doctor from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.Gupta received a Bachelor of Arts from Emory University.
Gregory, Doyle, Calhoun & Rogers, LLC is a full-service law firm based outside Atlanta in Marietta, Georgia. Founded in 1980, the firm serves clients in the family-owned business, construction, education, energy, financial services, healthcare, manufacturing, retail, real estate and government industries. attorneys with real-world experience advising individuals, families, businesses and governmental entities on a wide range of complex business and legal issues.


text:
Ruby Mathieu Aug 25 1997
Need more information on Yancy Greene Hester, born 1837 don't know where, but he died Nov. 1, 1916 and is buried in Bass chapel cemetery in Greene Co. I assume he lived in Greene County. Does anyone have any census to look this up for me? His wife was Isabelle Lea Caynor, born June 1839, died April 4, 1910. Any information will be appreciated. Katie Haugse Aug 25 1997
I am looking for info on Sarah Clemetine Bradshaw (my great grandmother). Born: March 4, 1849 in Greene County, Missouri. She married Samuel F. Black from Pennsylvania on Dec 31, 1866 in Napa County, Calif. They had 7 children. I would like to find her parents or siblings. Carey Rogers Aug 24 1997
Looking for information on John A. Ford who was reportedly killed in Greene County shortly after the Civil War, perhaps in 1865. He was a Union soldier from Sebastian County, Arkansas who was supposedly shot by "bushwhackers". Families named Nixon and Deeds would have been in the county at the same time. His family moved to Graves County, Kentucky by 1870. Dale Rich Aug 23 1997
Seeking any information on a Rev George Long m Elizabeth Lindsey lived in Greene Co around 1863. George died 1888 burried Rose Hill Cemetery near Cave Springs/Willard, Greene Co. MO. Jon Ridgeway Aug 23 1997
Peter Grant Stewart, a jeweler and watchmaker, moved from NY to Greene County, Missouri about 1840. In Springfield, on Sep. 1, 1842, he married Rebecca Rawlings Cason, daughter of Fendall Carr and Rebecca Rawlings Holladay Cason. In 1843, both Stewart and the Cason family left for Oregon, where Stewart was prominent in the early government. Any information about activity in Greene County? Bob Shelton Fri Aug 22 10:56:15 1997
My ggrandfather Willis Vernon Shelton was born in 1877 ? MO. He married Mannie _?_ Gwin on 10-25-1899 in Collegvill.Sanjoaquin,CA. Then went back to MO. Mannie was born in Virginia. She was 23+yrs old he was 22 yrs at the time of thier marriage. He had 3 brothers, Ross, Jesse, Cleab, who I believe moved from Missouri to the Stockton CA. area around 1899. He had 1 sister Francis who married Dewitt Rice in Fairoak,CA. My grandfather Cecil Merle Shelton born 1-29-1901 or 02 in Springfield,MO married Jesse Moore on 2-15-1926 in Sandpoint,Idaho her family came from Canada I believe. He had 1 sister named Gladys Bowling. Nola Gillihan-Webster Aug 18 1997
Searching for the parents of these children: 1. Mr. Brown + Mrs. ____-Brown 2. (female) Brown married Ruben Smith (c1790-1850) 2. Lucinda Brown b. abt 1794 m. Thomas Gillihan (c1783 NC-1840 MO) d. abt 1840 Polk Co, MO 2. Rebecca Brown b. abt 1796 m. Alexander Blair (1788-1874) 2. Jane Brown b. 1802 Seneca, Oconee Co, SC m. John Wright (c1790-1848) d. April 1865 Polk Co, MO 2. Hezekiah Brown b. 1804 d. 1870 These families, except Alexander Blair, followed the same migration pattern - Tennessee>Illinois>Missouri. They appeared in Greene Co MO and later in Polk Co MO with John Wright, Ruben Smith, Thomas Gillihan, and Hezekiah Brown living next to one another on the 1834 Greene County MO tax list. - Alexander Blair was not on the tax records for Greene Co MO, but he appears on the first tax list of Polk Co, MO taken between 1837 and 1838. The 1830 Greene County IL census (p 47) lists John Wright, Ruben Smith, and Thomas Gillihan. Hezekiah Brown's residence was proved by his military record. The male heads of these household can be found in the state land entries on the Caney Fork of Indian Creek in Jackson County TN, but other records are very scarce since this was a burned county. Any information about the above families would be appreciated by the descendants of John Wright and Thomas Gillihan. Snail address: Nola Gillihan-Webster; 21245 Vermander; Clinton Twp, MI 48035 Jess Davis Aug 20 1997
I am looking for information on my wife's grandfather. His name was Burr Oaris Rice. Born July 21,1904 in Springfield,Mo. Parents named Arthur Scott Rice & Lula Mae Burke. He married Lily Venus Cassidy sometime between 1920-1925. Judy R. Stone Aug 17 1997
Albert M. Stone was born in Jasper Co. (Joplin Mo.) and moved to Springfield, Mo. sometime after 1920. I cannot find any information on him after he came to Greene Co. Ann Walenta Aug 14 1997
I am looking for information on the following Greene Co. MO., families: Perryman 1836-present, Swinney 1878-present, Lemmon 1840-present, and Looney 1838-present. Linda Davies Aug 12 1997
William Johnson, born 1826, Ill. Wife Louisa, born1825, Tenn. Children Allen 1848, Thomas 1855, Sarah 1857, and Jane (Lucinda Jane) 1854. They are on the Greene Co 1860 census. Jane may be my ggm. Does anyone have any information on this family? Jackie French Aug 12 1997
I am looking for any information about the Haymes, Yelvington and Elvington families. My father was born in Greene county and the Yelvington's have ties there and in Webster County. My G Grandmother was Mary Jane Haymes Yelvington. I would be very grateful for any information. Betty Sullivan Aug 12 1997
My great grandfather, William Lundy Mack was a prominent citizen in Springfield, Mo., Greene County. He came to MO in 1852 at age 19. He enlisted in Co. B, Sixth MO Cavalry and served to the end of the Civil War. He married Arminta Parlee Dew and they had 6 children. He served as clerk of the Probate Court, Greene Co., MO. Before that, he held the office of deputy county clerk until 1866 and was deputy sheriff and jailer until 1874. I do not know his death date nor that of his wife. Would appreciated any info available. Merriam White Aug 12 1997
I'm looking for a William H. Moore b.? and where? Married a Sarah Roark in Dent County, Mo. in 1860. Born Douglas P. Moore 10 July 1860 in Dent County, Mo. Douglas moved to Springfield, Mo. and died in 1950. Two wives, Nancy Tibetha Alice Leona Ford and Prudence ? married Prudence late in life. Would like to make any connections with ancestors or possible sibling of Douglas P. Moore? OOwens Aug 8 1997
Seek help finding my ggrandfather Joel Wesley Byies/Buis/Bias. He married Rachel Mariam Copple ca 1874 Greene Co.Mo. They had son William Silas Byies who married Martha Melvina Wallace dau.of Charles Wallace and Lucinda Rella Segars William S.Byies was born 03 Oct.1875 Greene Co. Mo.will gladly share info. Cookie Scalph Schuerg Aug 8 1997
I am desperately seeking information about both sets of my great/great grandparents. I have been told they resided in Springfield and lived across the road from one another. If you have or know of any links to any of them please contact me. One set is Alfred Scalf/Scalph and Mary E. Wright. The other set is George and Maggie Wilkerson. Two of the Wilkerson daughters married Scalph sons. Delia Gonzalez Aug 5 1997
I'm looking for marriage info on my ggrandfather Samuel Douglas Wallin b.1857 and either Mary America Dill b. 1869 or Hannah Dill b. 1871. What I am guessing happened is that Samuel married Hannah Dill first, she had the first 6 kids, then died. Samuel then married Mary America, and child 7 in Arkansas. Looking for infor regarding the death of Hannah Dill and marriage info for both women. Children were born between 1885 and 1900. Mary Ellen Ledford Jul 26 1997
Need help with families of Zeb Ledford born 1848 and wife Sallie A born 1852 Ky. They were living Green Co. Mo 1870 and had bady Mary 7/12 born Mo. Aprox. January 4, 1872 Springfield, MO Newspaper listed Zebedee Ledford refuses to pay debts of estranged wife Sallie A Ledford. What happened to their baby Mary??? Zeb married in Barry Co. MO Dec 4 1873 Catherine McGrady born 1854 KY. Hd married /3 Mollie McGown cir 1883, possibly Indian Territory Chickasaw Nation. Can anyone help with any of this family. Various places Zeb Ledford lived were Yancey Co. NC 1850; Yancey Co. NC 1860, Green Co. MO 1870; Barry Co. MO 1873 ; Dallas Co. Tx 1880; Chickasaw Nation Indian Territory 1900. His Father was Samuel B. Ledford b 1811 NC possibly died 1865-1870 Polk Co. MO or Sebastian Co. Ar. Jason Ross Jul 25 1997
I am looking for a Robert Ross who moved to Greene County in 1832 and was the son of William Ross. Both of them were surveyors and helped set up the Campbell Township. Specifically, i am looking for any documentation that will show that Robert is William's son and also any information of the father of William. Jean Rowcliffe Jul 25 1997
I am trying to locate my grandfathers parents. My grandfather Thomas Pearce was born in Springfield, MO June 2, 1901 his parents were John Lincoln Pearce and Minnie Almira Peek. I have so far been unable to find further information about John and Minnie. John Hornung Jul 25 1997
Looking for info on Nora Roach Felton Humble. These are my ggrandparents, and resided in and around Rogersville. Any info appreciated. I have some information but there are missing offspring. Jeff Sanow Jul 25 1997
We are looking for a birth record dated April 12, 1861. The birth took place in Greene County, MO The child was a female. Her name was Elizabeth Alice, last name possibly Rose. Freda P. Summar Jul 25 1997
I'm looking for ancestors, and decendants of Jeremiah West, b. Jan. 12, 1837 in Penn. He migrated to Highland Co., Ohio and married Hannah Warden. They then moved to Mo. Some of the kids were b. in Ohio, and some in Mo., mostly in Greene Co., in and around Strafford. Need any info I can get. Others are Isaac Henry West, and Mary Bell Melton, Ancestor, and decendants of Ansel Melton, and Margaret Willoughby. Darolyn Mason Jul 25 1997
I am searching for family and ancestors of Ruben C Gilmore who married Victoria Annis Brient/Bryant Mar 31 1861 probably Ellwood, Greene co, MO. Ruben b. Jan 7 1841. 4 children; Sarah Bell Gilmore 1862-1942 (mar. John Grant 1881), Charles B Gilmore b. 1864 (mar. Lavena Warren 1886), Mary Ellen Gilmore 1866-1890 (mar. Freman Slagle 1884, Katie Alice Gilmore b. 1868 (mar. Conrad Slagle). Victoria b. Sep 14 1845 - d. Oct 24 1889, parents Solomon B Brient and Elizabeth Jane Lee 1824-1901. I have information to share on descendants, and am interested in more information on Victoria Annis Brient's ancestors. Phil Carman Jul 24 1997
I'm looking for information regarding the Carman surname. My father's name was Emerson Carman, Jr. He was born December 26, 1913, in Springfield, Missouri. His father's name was Emerson Carman, b. October 1889; d. Oct 1959. I believe he was born somewhere in southwest Missouri, but I'm not sure of the town. He had a brother whose name was Earl Carman who was married to Wanda; they lived in southwest Missouri. My father's mother was Hattie Fair, b. April 1889; d. February 1920. and she came from Cape Fair, MO. I'm not sure when Emerson and Hattie were married, but probably around 1910-12. I have found a number of Carman's living in Lawrence cty in an 1850 census document. Any information or insights will be appreciated. Wayne Hunt 31 July 1997
Seeking information on the Elijah b. 1811 & John Hunt b. abt 1813 families. Both went from VA to KY to Henry County, MO by 1839 and were in Greene County by 1847. Elijah and wife Sarah Ann had at least 9 children. John and wife (1) Mary Ann had aleast 8 children and wife (2) Frances Sink had at least 7 children. Cookie Scalph Schuerg 31 July 1997
I have been having a hard time locating my g/g grandparents. I have been told thier names were George and Maggie Wilkerson and Alfred and Mary E. Scalph. I was told they lived in Springfield in the middle/late 1800's and early 1900's. I was told the Wilkersons lived accross the road from the "Alfred Scalph" family my other g/g grandparents. Do you have anything about the Scalphs or Wilkersons? I have also been told a couple of the Scalph boys married Wilkerson girls. Lorinda and Agnes I believe. I also am related to the Wilsons in Republic, Missouri. Loren Wilson and Vivian b>Scalph were my great Aunt and Uncle. Any info greatly appreciated and I can supply you with what I have. Ruby (Vanzandt) Mathieu 31 July 1997
I show George F. VanZandt and Emily buried in Bass Chapel Cemetery in Greene County MO. He was born 19 Dec 1834 and died 31 Aug 1915; She was born 15 Jan 1852 and died 27 May 1930. From a page in a Bible, their children are all listed, with the first one, John b. 11 Jan 1857. That couldn't be her son. I know George was married to a part-Indian woman named Salena Uptergrove, buried in Union Grove Cemetery near Fair Grove, Greene Co. MO. Her birth date was 1855. So that couldn't be her son either. Was he married to a third woman first? If anyone has any information on Salena Uptergrove or this family, I would like to hear from them. Karen L Layton 31 July 1997
Looking for Rowland Lee and Keziha Brammer-Lee. Both were born in Virginia; he was in the census in 1840 in Greene County. Looking for his gravesite if there is one... Rellen Owen 31 July 1997
I just found out yesterday that a complete line of my family that I have been searching for in Tenn moved to Greene County, MO. I am searching for information on the McMackin family. The head of the family would have been John McMackin. It is believed we was in the area as early as 1870 but apparently he traveled back and forth between Tn & Mo. His son Marion McMackin has shown up on a 1910 Census. Any information about this family would be appreciated. . Diane Parrish 31 July 1997
Trying to find records of our Greene County ancestors. The surname is Richesin. Our direct line descends from Jesse R. Richesin who was born 15 August 1854 near Ash Grove, Missouri. He married Caldonia Evelina Byrom. Jesse Richesin had a 240 acre farm near Ash Grove. This family would have been out of the area by January 1893, when my grandmother Ruth Richesin was born in Arkansas. I have found in the 1900 census for Springfield, a Joseph Richesin who was born 1867 also his brother Marcellus who was born 1878, both in Missouri. I have also found the obituary for George P. Richesin, born 1858 in Greene County & died August 1925 & buried in Clear Creek cemetery. The 1900 Green county federal census also lists a William Richesin born 1865 , wife Martha (1875) and son Ross ( 1898). Sure need help with my Richesin ancestors. Esther Catron Allen 31 July 1997
Marion Alonzo Catron, born Aug 27 1895 In Greene County MO, to William And Millie Or Mildred Vaughn. Request any information on Birth record of Marion or brother or sisters.Any information will be most appreciated. Robin Marshall 17 July 1997
I am looking for information concerning John R. Dodson. I believe he died in Springfield, MO in 1941. He is buried in Clear Creek Cemetery. I was there a few weeks ago. I am just beginning my search for a full family tree. James Butler Sat Jul 12 1997
I am looking for information about Frances Ann Sluder. She was born April 9, 1852 in Springfield, Missouri. She died in December of 1937 in Tuttle, Oklahoma. She married Fredrick Marshall Butler. The had nine children Ric Nold Fri Jul 11 1997
I am trying to find information on the Sheppard family. Several of the Sheppard family moved to Springfield in the 1850's from the New Jersey area. They were involved in the mercantile trade. Several more moved to the area in the 1860's. The Sheppards were my great grand parents. If anyone would like to look at my genealogy webpage, the address is: http://www.netguard.net/~cjnold.


Sayers - one of our biggest hopes - can she do it on the day?
Last month we asked you to vote on the Year Zero debate.
The questions was: should all existing recors and marks be wiped from the books so that athletics records can start again?
If you've read the Power of 10 top ten for Beijing article then you will know it is difficult to shortlist our main medal chances at the Olympics. However, we want to hear from you - who do you think are the most likely athletes to bring home the precious metal?


The internet's a weird place.
I have so many questions. Starting with the screen name.
Figure out who that guy is, then carefully recreate all his photos, post them on the same sites, and wait.
Never updated this with more info, but turns out this random guy who runs a brewery in Northeast Minneapolis actually has a daughter at my kid's school in the same grade as my youngest. I saw him and his wife at Open House and sprinted over to say hi. It was awkward to say the least, but he did tell me to come up to the brewery for a beer on the house anytime. Still haven't taken the time to do that.
He's literally living the life you wish you had.
Y'ever stumble onto a subreddit with 1 post, 1 subscriber, and decide to take a screenshot?


The chain of dominoes has brought down the regimes of Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt, may topple Gaddafi in Libya… and other presidents and monarchs are in peril. What has happened in these other countries? Welcome to the Spineless Liberal's fact-file on the Arab Spring.
Divided up into four, including a brief description of the protests and possible outcomes – in this post, we discuss where the crackdowns have been hardest and where we may yet see a change in government. Enter Bahrain and Yemen.


- A cool look with its semi-slick granulated profile.
- An original profile, comfortable, styled and with low rolling resistance for sports use in the city.
- Grooves allow for better evacuation of water.
- Reflecting lateral bands for maximum safety.
- Excellent resistance to perforations and cuts thanks to its reinforcements.
- Designed for 100% urban use and sports use.


text:
Media: The EU will toughen fight against money laundering
Date: 10 months ago 2018-09-10 08:00 Category: Financial
Brussels seeks to toughen powers of the agencies of the EU on fight against money laundering and financing of terrorism. The European Commission intends to allocate the European regulator − the European bank association (EBA) − with additional resources for investigation of the movement and washing of criminal cash flows. Financial Times with reference to the high-ranking officials of EC reports about it. Also the European Commission intends to give to recently formed prosecutor's office of the EU the rights for excitement since 2025 of cases of financing of terrorist activity. Both initiatives of strengthening of powers of the EU in fight against money laundering have followed messages about what in one year has passed not less than 30 billion dollars from Russia through the Estonian branch Danske Bank and other CIS countries. At the moment the ECB has some rights of check of banks for money laundering. Besides, responsibility for fight against washing of means lies mostly on national regulators. Now, according to plans, the European prosecutor's office will be able not only to investigate the financial crimes connected with use of budgets of the European countries but also to begin criminal prosecution.  By the present moment 22 of 28 EU countries have agreed with a similar initiative. Acceptance of the final decision on expansion of responsibility of two supervisory authorities requires the consent of all members of the union. We will remind, in February, 2018 in Latvia there was a scandal over money laundering in one of the largest banks of the country of ABLV. As a result of the USA and the ECB its closings have achieved, and the authorities of the country have forbidden banks to cooperate with the companies which aren't engaged in real economic activity. Britain investigates transactions of Russians with the real estate of News from the Correspondent.netv of Telegram. Subscribe for our https://t.me/korrespondentnet channel
URL: http://newswell.info/articles/media_the_eu_will_toughen_fight_against_money_laundering
2019-07-15 19:002 hrs ago


Portola Art Gallery has been in business for 30+ years and we've been located at Allied Arts Guild for 10 years.
To celebrate, we're offering a very special 10% off all artwork (with the exception of cards) during the month of November!
We'll have an artists' reception on Saturday, November 3 from 1 to 4 pm with artist demonstrations.
Please join me for the last show of the year!
Please bring cloth shopping bags to save trees, and bring your checkbook to save the bank fees that artists pay when you use a charge or debit card!
Please stop by and say hello! This show features fine art pieces range from paintings and sculpture to ceramics, jewelry, and unique gifts. Entertainment, food and beverages make this an ideal occasion for shopping and family fun.
As you stroll through Lincoln Park under the redwoods viewing first-rate art, you'll take comfort knowing that your purchase goes to support a great cause. All profits of the Rotary Fine Art in the Park show go to support a wide range of local and Bay Area community service agencies plus many international development projects.
Come for a day of fun and great art. Parking is not a problem. There is free shuttled parking from Los Altos High School, Gardner Bullis School, and Los Altos Hills Town Hall.


text:
Viktor Stretti, born Vítězslav Otakar Stretti (7 April 1878 in Plasy – 3 March 1957 in Dobříš) was a well known Czech etcher and lithographer. His brother was the etcher Jaromír Stretti-Zamponi.

External links
 http://www.galerie-vysocina.com/obraz.php?idautor=115
 http://www.batz-hausen.de/dvstret.htm
 http://www.kdykde.cz/vystavy/obrazy/praha/4361___viktor-stretti---vyber-25-grafickych-lisu-z-ranneho-obdobi

1878 births
1957 deaths
Czech etchers
Czech lithographers
20th-century Czech painters
Czech male painters
Czech people of Italian descent
Czech Freemasons
People from Plasy
20th-century Czech male artists
20th-century lithographers

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


SEMA's Manufacturers' Representative Network (MRN) will host the Rep Technology Roundtable business-critical discussions moderated by industry thought leaders on November 2, 2014, from 3:30 p.m.–6:00 p.m. at the Westgate Las Vegas Resort & Casino (formerly the LVH), Ballrooms D–E.
Trends in Healthcare: How Reps Agencies Navigate Obama Care. Gladys Zolna Esq., partner at Freeborn & Peters LLP.
How MRERF Can Help Reps Conduct Business. Karen Jefferson, CSP, CMPR, executive director at MRERF.
Business Apps for Reps. Tyler Tanaka, president at Cie Studios.
Reps as SDC Receivers—Value-Added Proposition. Jon Wyly, president and CEO of SEMA Data Co-op.
An exclusive benefit to the more than 500 SEMA MRN members, the MRN Rep Center will offer a specific location at the SEMA Show to provide a lounge area, a private meeting room and business services that include a PC and printer. Offering additional value to MRN members, the Rep Center will again house Manufacturers' Representatives Matching Forms.
Manufacturers' Representatives Matching Forms connect exhibiting SEMA Show manufacturers to MRN reps who are looking for new product lines. The completed forms are kept secure in the MRN Rep Center, where MRN members can review and contact participating manufacturers to schedule meetings.
The MRN Rep Center is located at the rear of the SEMA Members Lounge and will open Monday, November 3, at 9:00 a.m. and close at the conclusion of the SEMA Show.
Just getting started with product data? This introductory course will explain the industry data standards in easy-to-understand terms, giving you the confidence to begin managing your product data like a pro!
Ready for a deeper dive into the PIES standard? This advanced session will provide training on more-detailed elements of the standard, including how to use advanced product attributing to increase product visibility and enhanced product-description building techniques. This session is especially important for product lines that are not dependent on year/make/model applications.
This ACES session will provide training and insight into this critical data standard for more advanced users. Topics include advanced training on the proper use of each of the ACES segments and how to use the ACES Fitment Standard in conjunction with the PIES standard to increase product searchability and sell more parts.
Be prepared for a lively discussion with a panel of SDC members, moderated by Bob Moore of J&B Service. Actual data users and managers will be on stage and ready to answer your questions and provide insights into their data-management practices. We want your business to succeed, and the SDC can help!
This seminar is restricted to data managers. They will learn more about getting the most out of data sets from top professionals in the industry. They will discuss how to improve the quality of data with the goal of receiver customers selling more of their parts.
For SDC supplier and receiver members only, this user group experience is the forum where SDC members can have their voices heard by their vendors and customers. Bob Castle will moderate the forum and follow up the discussion with an outlook for the SDC in 2015 and beyond.


text:
Professor Chad Kinsella gives expert opinion on chaos at the Capitol
By: Lari'onna Green
Posted: Jan 7, 2021 6:50 PM EST
NOW: Professor Chad Kinsella gives expert opinion on chaos at the Capitol
Jack Cowell on the post-Inauguration Day overview of the Biden...
Sunny today, cold air and clouds return Friday
Michiana reacts to historic inauguration
Notre Dame professor weighs in on directives President Biden...
A brief history of Inauguration Day: The significance of 2021's
ABC's Alex Presha weighs in on Inauguration Day events live...
South Bend Mayor James Mueller reacts to President Biden's...
Cold and quiet, a more active winter pattern next week
Political expert discusses Inauguration Day for President Joe...
Pokagon Band gives monetary support to Beacon Children's Hospital
Mishawaka Police investigating shooting at Family Express on...
Dr. Kinsella outlines the Inauguration of President Biden and...
ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, Ind. – Political Science Professor at Ball State University Chad Kinsella joins ABC57 to discuss the chaos that took place at the Capitol.
ABC57's Brian Conybeare asks Professor Kinsella his expert opinion on a few different questions involving invoking the 25th amendment to remove President Donald Trump, the multiple people resigning from the Trump Administration and whether or not the move was too late after supporting the President after four years.
When asked about remaining cabinet members invoking the 25th amendment to remove President Donald Trump, Professor Kinsella said that this point, anything can happen.
"At this point, I would say anything is possible. I would say it is probably unlikely but I feel like I've said that before and some odd things have happened, but its all possible," said Professor Kinsella. "I think it would be important to see what happens going forward. I think we have a chance of a cooling off period and a chance to see what happens. We've only got two weeks left before President-elect Biden takes over so I think it'll more of a wait-and-see type of attitude before we see if that truly needs to be done. We'll have to wait on that one."
Jack Cowell on the post-Inauguration Day overview of the Biden administration


text:
Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism
Get access Subject: Religious Studies
Edited by: Wouter J. Hanegraaff, in collaboration with Antoine Faivre, Roelof van den Broek and Jean-Pierre Brach
Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism Online is the comprehensive reference work to cover the entire domain of "Gnosis and Western Esotericism" from the period of Late Antiquity to the present. Containing around 400 articles by over 180 international specialists, Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism Online provides critical overviews discussing the nature and historical development of all its important currents and manifestations, from Gnosticism and Hermetism to Astrology, Alchemy and Magic, from the Hermetic Tradition of the Renaissance to Rosicrucianism and Christian Theosophy, and from Freemasonry and Illuminism to 19thcentury Occultism and the contemporary New Age movement. Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism Online also contains articles about the life and work of all the major personalities in the history of Gnosis and Western Esotericism, discussing their ideas, significance, and historical influence.


As a passion project, I draw a surf cartoon called Sea Legs. Fin and his friends were born the day I saw Thomas Campbell's movie 'The Seedling'. In one scene, the camera follows a surfer walking with his board under his arm and, to me, the shadows that were created looked like the surfboard had legs and was walking itself. My brain found that amusing and I immediately started drawing surfboards with legs. Fin became a fish pretty quickly as that is my favorite type of surfboard.
As of October, Sea Legs products are now available for purchase via Redbubble, and prints are available via the Sea Legs website; which I also built and designed using Squarespace (a service I would love to provide for you! Need a website? Write me here :) and let's get started).
If you would like to support Sea Legs (and, in return, get some cool behind-the-scenes looks, patron-only cartoons, and discounts to the Sea Legs shop) please check out my Patreon page here! I love inspiring and amusing readers with my cartoon and look forward to growing the brand as much as possible.


text:
RRLS
Home 3 Bedroom Mid-Terraced House, Egham
3 Bedroom Mid-Terraced House, Egham
Egham, Egham,
Surrey, United Kingdom
£1,350per month Let Agreed
Price: £1,350 per calendar month
Tenure: 6/12 month tenancy. Renewable.
Deposit: £1,550
LOCATION: Situated in a very pleasant quiet residential location within easy reach of the village centre and with Egham town centre and station a short journey away. The property offers good access to all local amenities and is within a mile of the M25 motorway junction at Egham.
DESCRIPTION: Comprising of a modern mid terrace house, which is newly decorated and fitted with new carpets throughout. The property is bright and spacious has the benefit of its own garage in a block. There is an enclosed garden to the rear.
ACCOMMODATION COMPRISES:
LOUNGE: 14ft 1in x 13ft 9in open plan to
DINING AREA: 9ft 11in x 6ft 10in
KITCHEN: 9ft 2in x 6ft 7in with gas hob & electric oven, fridge/freezer, washing machine.
BEDROOM No 1: 13ft 8in x 8ft 7in
BEDROOM No 2: 9ft 3in x 7ft 7in
BEDROOM No 3: 9ft 3in x 5ft 10in
BATHROOM/W.C: with electric shower
GAS WARM AIR CENTRAL HEATING
TENURE: Available on 12 month tenancy. Renewable.
RENT: £1,350 per calendar month
VIEWING: By appointment through R.R.L.S.
LETTING FEES AND TENANT PROTECTION INFORMATION
The accuracy of these particulars, although believed to be correct and offered in good faith by Runnymede Residential Letting Services Limited, are supplied by the Landlords and are not guaranteed or intended to form part of any contract. Prospective Tenants should take their own measurements of room sizes if these are to be relied upon and make their own enquiries as to the suitability of the accommodation and its location before entering into any formal Agreement.
2 Bedroom Mid-Terrace, Ashford
Ashford, Middlesex, Ashford, Middlesex, United Kingdom
5 Bedroom Detached House, Egham
Egham, Egham, Surrey, United Kingdom
3 Bedroom End-of-Terrace, Egham
3 Bedroom Terraced House, Thorpe
Thorpe, Thorpe, Surrey, United Kingdom
This website uses cookies. By continuing to browse the website, you consent to the use of cookies. View Cookies & Privacy Policy


Prerogatives Sterling Red and Black Glass Bead is rated 4.0 out of 5 by 1.
Rated 4 out of 5 by carousel from Not a true red The bead is lovely overall - perfect if you like orange red. But that's not the color scheme I'm going for. Sadly, it is going back.


Most MOVE programming will take place at the Dearborn Inn in Dearborn, MI, but there will be events happening at multiple venues throughout the conference. Click here for a full list of conference venues and their addresses.
Philanthropy: Donors and anyone who wants to learn more about charitable giving will increase their knowledge of philanthropy tools, trends and best practices, how to tackle problem areas through strategic giving, and how all generations are making a difference through inspirational examples of giving back.
Activism: Activists and others interested in building a movement to impact issues facing the Arab American community learn from experienced individuals and from each other how to work effectively together to raise their voices and create change.
Organizational development: Nonprofit leaders learn how to improve the management of their organizations and strengthen their programs to advance their mission.
DIWAN7 (now part of MOVE 2017): Arab American artists, scholars, and performers representing myriad academic fields and artistic genres explore the boundaries of art in addressing social issues related to Arab Americans and the community at large.
Youth Empowerment: High school- and college-aged youth in the Arab American community will come together for sharing, learning, and relationship building. Primarily youth led, this track will focus on many facets of youth leadership development including advocacy and youth programming.
For details about workshop sessions including session descriptions and speakers, click here.


Thanks to the generosity of supporters we raised just over $27,000 in public donations online, in just 20 days! And because a kind supporter has matched all public donations received before midnight on Christmas Eve, that puts the total at an amazing $54,000!
This means that, as well as remote heart health missions and preventative health and education, we'll be able to expand our life-saving penicillin program. We'll be able to identify more at-risk young people and provide monthly penicillin shots to stop their heart disease from progressing.